'this is some horrendous piece of music...'

[all_i_want]

i am preparing a new radio show for the fall season, and i was kind of tossing some ideas around with a friend and we came to a point where we had to agree to disagree. the question is, what is good music? how can we know that we are listening to objectively good, quality music? is it simply about taste, or can we decide what is good and what is bad when it comes to art? so, in a nutshell, why dont you give me 3 reasons why you consider your music taste to be good. and then ill pick the ones i like

 

[pepokiss]

because I'm me... and I rule

 

[Mr. MIKEphisto]

This frustrates me sometimes.

I talk with people, and they argue that music is subjective (as they listen to their Shania Twain and Celine Dion) and that there is no line to good vs. bad music.

I disagree, I feel there is a difference to good and bad music, and people can just have bad taste, but what determines it? All I know is that for example, C. Dion IS in fact Terrible, and that U2 or Radiohead is in fact good (at least a lot of it).

How do you tell the difference?

 

[nickypiemcg]

A tough question.

I would defnitely class Celine Dion, McFly (an annoying boy band who claim they aren't cos they play their own instruments and write their own songs, even though they are rubbish songs) as bad music no matter what anyone says. I find the kind of people that are into that kind of bad music are not really into music at all but like a few songs they've heard on the radio. I think the more music you listen to the greater appreciation you have of what is bad and what is good. You start to listen to lyrics more and begin to realise when a band has put efoort and thought into a song rather than some annoying hook about meeting a girl in the supermarket or something. I also think playing an instrument like the guitar makes you appreciate good music cos you realise how easy some songs are to come up with.

That saif if a bad group have a good song I would admit that I liked it and not just hate it because who is singing it.

 

[{paintedroses}]

I think our preferences are down to personal taste mostly, but I think even if your taste tells you that you prefer say Scissor Sisters to U2, theres no denying that U2 are the better band on the basis of ability, originality, songwriting, performing live etc. I think the quality of music is objective but a person's own judgement can easily overlook this. I think the only way to improve your judgement of what is good and what is crap is by listening to loads and loads of different types of music. In my experience, most people who like rubbish pop music or whatever haven't ever took the time to listen to real music and thats why they don't realise that what they're listening to is shit. What frustrates me is how people dismiss music as crap when they haven't given it a real listen. It's all about experience..

I don't think this answers your question at all lol

 

[BluRmGrl]

the question is, what is good music? how can we know that we are listening to objectively good, quality music?

:zombievoice: Good music is whatever the radio plays. Record companies only produce good quality music. :endzombievoice:



And to address the matter at hand, I don't believe it's a question of good music v/s bad music so much as what has mass appeal v/s limited appeal.
Lots of people like a band/song? Music = "good".
Few people like a band/song? Music = "bad".

The real answer, however, is whatever I like is good music. The rest is shite!!

 

[u2popmofo]

You've probably seen me type up my lame little pet peeve on here a million times, so I'm going to keep it short....

Music and any "art" comes down to personal preference. We all know and can agree "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", well it's also in the ear of the listener. It's all relative, what's crap to me can be fantastic to you. It would be ridiculous for me or anyone to tell you that "you just have bad taste", because you could say the same thing back to me and have just as much right to.

That being said, it's ok to have reasons for why you dont like things (as long as those reasons actually make sense).

 

[TheFly84138]

I think our preferences are down to personal taste mostly, but I think even if your taste tells you that you prefer say Scissor Sisters to U2, theres no denying that U2 are the better band on the basis of ability, originality, songwriting, performing live etc. I think the quality of music is objective but a person's own judgement can easily overlook this. I think the only way to improve your judgement of what is good and what is crap is by listening to loads and loads of different types of music. In my experience, most people who like rubbish pop music or whatever haven't ever took the time to listen to real music and thats why they don't realise that what they're listening to is shit. What frustrates me is how people dismiss music as crap when they haven't given it a real listen. It's all about experience..

I don't think this answers your question at all lol

^What they said

 

[u2popmofo]

Re: Re: 'this is some horrendous piece of music...'

And to address the matter at hand, I don't believe it's a question of good music v/s bad music so much as what has mass appeal v/s limited appeal.
Lots of people like a band/song? Music = "good".
Few people like a band/song? Music = "bad".

I reread this and I'm not really sure what you meant here, maybe you werent serious. So if something is popular, that means it's good? I'm really not following this reasoning. Most any band has to start somewhere, and many of these bands make fantastic music but have just not gotten the amount of press and exposure to push them into mainstream acceptance. Does this mean that all of these groups are "bad"? Hardly anyone likes classical music and jazz any more, does this mean it's bad? A good number of my friends will come over and look at my CD collection and tell me things like, "I've only heard of about 10 of the groups you have cds of", does this mean the other 650+ cds I have are bad?

Maybe I'm misinterpretting this, further explanation would be appreciated.

 

[OnFire]

Celine Dion isn't terrible because she has no talent. She can hold notes forever and has great range, she's terrible because her music has the appeal of a hospital waiting room.

I'm sure she's as popular as she is for her technical ability, just like some people only like guitarists who shread, drummers that pound and a bass that throbs. If I like a song for it's chops, it's usually incidental to the fact that it takes me somewhere I want to go. Lyrically, it needs to have that ellusive personal yet universal appeal as if everyone who hears it can relate as if it was written just for them.

 

[BluRmGrl]

Re: Re: Re: 'this is some horrendous piece of music...'

I reread this and I'm not really sure what you meant here, maybe you werent serious. So if something is popular, that means it's good? I'm really not following this reasoning. Most any band has to start somewhere, and many of these bands make fantastic music but have just not gotten the amount of press and exposure to push them into mainstream acceptance. Does this mean that all of these groups are "bad"? Hardly anyone likes classical music and jazz any more, does this mean it's bad? A good number of my friends will come over and look at my CD collection and tell me things like, "I've only heard of about 10 of the groups you have cds of", does this mean the other 650+ cds I have are bad?

Maybe I'm misinterpretting this, further explanation would be appreciated.

I'm talking about what the general perception is... i.e., Ashlee Simpson. Do I think she has a shred of talent? HELL NO!! But she is (or was) terribly popular amongst the teeny-bopper crowd, so the general perception is that her "music" is good. In other words, lots of sales for a record gives the impression that it's good to the casual observer.

I certainly don't subscribe to this theory. Some of the best music I've ever heard probably wouldn't sell 1000 copies, but that doesn't mean it wasn't amazing.

Does that make anymore sense?? Sometimes my little tangents only sound good in my head.

 

[u2popmofo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: 'this is some horrendous piece of music...'

I'm talking about what the general perception is... i.e., Ashlee Simpson. Do I think she has a shred of talent? HELL NO!! But she is (or was) terribly popular amongst the teeny-bopper crowd, so the general perception is that her "music" is good. In other words, lots of sales for a record gives the impression that it's good to the casual observer.

I certainly don't subscribe to this theory. Some of the best music I've ever heard probably wouldn't sell 1000 copies, but that doesn't mean it wasn't amazing.

Does that make anymore sense?? Sometimes my little tangents only sound good in my head.

Ahhhhhh, got it. That makes more sense! I completely agree.

I knew you were making fun of the idea that radio stations only play "what is good", but then I actually thought you really were arguing the popularity thing. That's why I asked, I figured I might just be mistaken! Glad I asked!

 

[boosterjuice]

I sum it up like this:

Bad Music:
a)Music striving for profit. The music no longer has become about art but rather is about packaging and marketing.
b) Music has poor melodies configured. ie(determined by chord structuring)


Good Music:
a)Music that has an underlying purpose that is greater than money.
b)There is a connection between the song and the artist.

 

[{paintedroses}]

I sum it up like this:

Bad Music:
a)Music striving for profit. The music no longer has become about art but rather is about packaging and marketing.
b) Music has poor melodies configured. ie(determined by chord structuring)


Good Music:
a)Music that has an underlying purpose that is greater than money.
b)There is a connection between the song and the artist.

I think this answers the question perfectly.. if only I could think that clearly

 

[Aygo]

Celine Dion isn't terrible because she has no talent. She can hold notes forever and has great range, she's terrible because her music has the appeal of a hospital waiting room.

I think the problem with Celine Dion is that she bets too much in romantic-love-deep-tragedy-soul-songs, however her last 2 english albums (A New Day Has Come & One Heart) had an improvement in the sound (more up-tempo and dance songs, less ballads) and the lyrics are not so "I'm in love" as in the past. I kinda liked them.
Another point is her french albums... that are... frankly good (in comparison with her english ones)! Since the early 90's she had released 4 french album all them are very good. The producers are very recognized in french music, lyrics are very good (for people who understands french, knows what I'm saying...)
Singers like Celine needs to free themselves of many things. In Celine's case, she needs to let go the "Power Of Love/Titanic" image, start to make its own lirics, more original music... and adopt a different image... Celine does not look 37, she looks 45!

 

[MrBrau1]

I sum it up like this:

Bad Music:
a)Music striving for profit. The music no longer has become about art but rather is about packaging and marketing.
b) Music has poor melodies configured. ie(determined by chord structuring)


Good Music:
a)Music that has an underlying purpose that is greater than money.
b)There is a connection between the song and the artist.

Now you're crossing into the attitude arena of why music is good/bad.

David Bowie has freely admitted he made pop songs in the early 80's to make $ and get chart positions. Does this mean "Modern Love" is bad by proxy? NO, it has the intention of being a hit, and is also wonderful music.

 

[{paintedroses}]

Now you're crossing into the attitude arena of why music is good/bad.

David Bowie has freely admitted he made pop songs in the early 80's to make $ and get chart positions. Does this mean "Modern Love" is bad by proxy? NO, it has the intention of being a hit, and is also wonderful music.

I agree with you as well.. this discussion is confusing my head. Maybe it is just down to personal taste

 

[Bono's shades]

I think to some degree the difference between "good" and "bad" music, or any other form of art, is subjective. But I also think there's a line you have to draw somewhere. Look at it this way, you wouldn't put a Harelequin romance on the same level artistically as "Romeo and Juliet" or the works of Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters, would you?

 

[boosterjuice]

Now you're crossing into the attitude arena of why music is good/bad.

David Bowie has freely admitted he made pop songs in the early 80's to make $ and get chart positions. Does this mean "Modern Love" is bad by proxy? NO, it has the intention of being a hit, and is also wonderful music.

Okay, so Mr. Bowie admitted that he made those pop songs for money. I'm not saying that it's bad music. Was his underlying motive solely for money?? Probably not. Only Bowie knows the answer.

I think that the artists are the only ones who truly know if they produce bad music.

 

[U2DMfan]

what's good to you is good to you
what's bad to you is bad to you
all the rest is posturing and conjecture, but if we didn't do that it wouldn't be much fun to talk about music.

I dont think that means you shouldnt argue about whats good and whats not, or stand up for what you believe to be better music but there is no tangible argument that automatically makes Radiohead better than Celine Dion other than personal preference. And I echo Brau's sentiment about "attitude" music.
I think for most on this board, a U2 board that comparison would seem to be obvious, but again it's just a preference for a certain sound.

 

[BluRmGrl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'this is some horrendous piece of music...'

Ahhhhhh, got it. That makes more sense! I completely agree.

I knew you were making fun of the idea that radio stations only play "what is good", but then I actually thought you really were arguing the popularity thing. That's why I asked, I figured I might just be mistaken! Glad I asked!

Glad I could clear that up!!

 

[u2popmofo]

I think to some degree the difference between "good" and "bad" music, or any other form of art, is subjective. But I also think there's a line you have to draw somewhere. Look at it this way, you wouldn't put a Harelequin romance on the same level artistically as "Romeo and Juliet" or the works of Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters, would you?

Very good point, I agree. Someone with an understanding of any art should be able to see that it takes a lot more effort and talent to create something complex and beautiful with deeper themes than it takes to make something that instantly gratifies but provides little to nothing else, but the vast majority of people dont have or are not interested in developing this "understanding" of the art form. Everyone "likes" music, but not everyone likes music (if that makes any sense).

Unfortunately, how is it possible to really make this standard (good vs bad, complex vs simple, beauty vs bland)? While some of us may think a band such as Sigur Ros really creates true "art and beauty" in their work, your average person would just give one of the great modern equalizers as an impression like "it sucks" or "this is weird". Though I've tried, I've yet to find a way to prove that one side is truely right or wrong. I had a former roommate who always said this, "There are only 2 types of music, music I like and music I dislike. I like this." As simple and seemingly shallow that arguement is, it's honeslty impossible to refute (though I and my other roommate sure would try).

Anyways, this thread has really been interesting. Lots of good points and comments.

 

[TheFly84138]

I agree with you as well.. this discussion is confusing my head. Maybe it is just down to personal taste

You were right with your first post my friend. I still like your summary the best.

 

[gareth brown]

I just want to put in a mention for 'McFly' here for the one who mentioned them on the last page...

I am FAR too old to have any interest whatsoever in them, but they are bizarrely not as bad as everyone makes out. If you listen to some of their stuff, it's kind of like early-mid 60's Beatles but made for teenagers today and obviously not striving to be Lennon-McCartney...

I really can't have an opinion on the question discussed here, it's far too vague...!

 

[{paintedroses}]

I just want to put in a mention for 'McFly' here for the one who mentioned them on the last page...

I am FAR too old to have any interest whatsoever in them, but they are bizarrely not as bad as everyone makes out. If you listen to some of their stuff, it's kind of like early-mid 60's Beatles but made for teenagers today and obviously not striving to be Lennon-McCartney...

I know what you mean, they aren't THAT bad.. maybe if they focussed their songwriting efforts on something less aimed at 10 year old girls they might be on to something

I like the song "It's All About You" But it was for charity!! So thats ok, right??!

 

[U2girl]

Personal taste. Good/bad music is in the ear of the beholder.

I don't necessarily belive in the "popular=bad" theory.

 

[#1bonofan]

1) i judge the passion in their music and performances (you can't get a more passionate singer than Bono and that makes up for his aging voice when it goes on some songs)

2) The technical ability. How well they play the instruments and how well it sounds in general.

3) The songwriting ability. You have to have good lyrics or else the whole thing comes undone in my opinion. I am moved by the way some artists pen their emotions, their beliefs, their politics, their causes, etc.

4) music that can change the world

5) music that is unique, that is created on a total original level, music that can't be imitated. People can imitate Celine Dion and other crap people, but no one can imitate people like U2, Radiohead, Queen, Zepplin, just to name a few.

These are a few of my reasons.

 

[melon]

the question is, what is good music? how can we know that we are listening to objectively good, quality music?

The difference is as simple as the difference between modernist and postmodernist approaches to "art." Modernists would argue that there is objective approaches to what is "high" or "low art." Postmodernism, on the other hand, would probably argue that everything is art.

Of course, modernists thought the only "good music" was classical music. When jazz came into the picture, they thought it was disposable, and they most certainly would find all contemporary music to be disposable too.

For this reason, I side with the postmodernist approach to music and art; that is, something is "good" only if we believe it to be and that is fully subjective.

[/end of FYM-like essay]

Melon

 

[wolfeden]

bad music = anything done by someone who doesn't feel what they're doing. Bowie might've deliberately skewed his writing towards a specific pop sound purely for the profit, but it was still Bowie all over and he still put his heart into performing it.

but even this is subjective.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Was it bob dylan who said there are only two kinds of music, death music and healing music? I don't even know what that means for sure, but it sounds good.

Someone somewhere also said that good art can never be depressing, and bad art can never be anything but depressing.